Re: Multiple types in RDFa vs. in Microdata

Martin, all,

I wrote a blog post summarizing the challenges of using multiple
vocabularies in microdata, which includes Martin's snippet as well as
another snippet I was given on #whatwg earlier last week.

http://openspring.net/blog/2011/06/10/microdata-multiple-vocabularies

Steph.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Martin Hepp <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all:
>>
>> Until today, I had assumed that one limitation of Microdata was that it
>> did not support more than one class per item, e.g. that you could not state
>> that something was e.g. the intersection of
>>
>>    http://www.productontology.org/id/Hammer
>> and
>>    http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Individual
>>
>> which, in the context of GoodRelations, means that it is an actual hammer
>> (like in describing antiques or other unique items).
>>
>> Now, reconsidering the issue, I am no longer convinced that this is valid
>> criticism, because you could use the full URI for rdf:type with itemprop:
>>
>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://www.foo.com/Type1" itemid="
>> http://acme.org/things#1>
>>  <a itemprop="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type" href="
>> http://www.foo.com/Type2"></a>
>> </div>
>>
>>
>> This should result in
>>
>>   <http://acme.org/things#1> a <http://www.foo.com/Type1>, <
>> http://www.foo.com/Type2> .
>>
>> or am I mistaken?
>>
>
> I believe you are correct, and according to the Live Microdata tool, it
> yields the expected results. here is the link (click on the turtle tab):
> http://j.mp/iUH2FS
>
> Steph.
>
>
>> Best
>> Martin Hepp
>>
>>
>>
>